Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by NelsErik, May 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. murphys_law

    murphys_law Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Midwest
    This is a very pro gun state......
     
  2. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    I think the MAIN difference between this and the way the NY SAFE Act was passed is that the people who elected their reps in Missouri had ample opportunity to hear about and comment on the bill, and thus far, I've yet to hear any hue and cry opposing it.
     
  3. garryburrell

    garryburrell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    gaston sc
    The way the usa was to work is the people come first then the states then the feds. But some were the power was revised. It need to be restored back. The usa is ( We the people for the people NOT we the fed by the fed.
     
  4. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,056
    That would probably be the Civil War, which made it clear to all states that the Union (now capitalized) was no longer bound by common-purpose so much as blood. Personally, I don't care for the road this "nullification" stuff takes us down; I'd much rather we have a legit, frank, Constitutional Debate using the proper amendment process rather than provoke a Constitutional Crisis where we start ripping apart at the seams and subverting our processes.

    As in the past, that choice will likely not be anyone's to make, however

    TCB
     
  5. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    The federal laws aimed at controlling guns throughout the states are based on the federal jurisdiction to control INTERSTATE commerce, specifically, in firearms. If so-called restricted weapons do not enter into interstate commerce, they may not fall under the purview of federal control. THAT is the basic premise of a state's challenge to federal intervention in attempting to control arms that remain in the state and never leave the borders of that state. Federal law is restricted with certain jurisdictional limits and parameters.
     
  6. r1derbike

    r1derbike Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    I would like to see the assertions of county (sheriffs/deputies) LEOs that they will meet Federal Officers at their county borders, and arrest Federal LEOs if they are to enforce Federal Law as rejected by the state.

    This may have disastrous results, depending on which side has the most gear, and I'm betting the Federals may arrive ready to do battle with military equipment provided by King Hussein.

    THIS would be a major newsworthy event, and could shape the entire LEO structure as we know it. I'm willing to bet that DHS will be a major player in this standoff, if it occurs.

    Nobody wants lives lost in a State/Federal battle ground, and especially citizens deputized to bring guns to bear on the Federals, DHS, National Guard, and other alphabet soup agencies called-in because of the magnitude of the event.

    Wouldn't it be ironic, that our Constitution and Bill of rights were to be contested first, with members of our very own law enforcement agencies, who were sworn to uphold the meaning and spirit, were the first to draw first blood?

    Interesting times, indeed.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  7. BigBoreJay

    BigBoreJay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Missouri
    I, for one, did not wait for my elected representatives to consult with me regarding my opinion. I called, and e-mailed, and sent paper, letting them know exactly where I stand.

    I am happy that they received my messages.
     
  8. MJU1983

    MJU1983 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Jefferson City, MO
    I sent several letters to my state representative and senator.

    Here is the last one I sent:

    Date: April 16th, 2013

    The Honorable Mike Kehoe
    201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 220
    Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

    Dear Senator:

    I am writing in regards to HB436, and Senator Nieves companion bill SB325. I strongly encourage you to support both efforts. Prior to the 17th amendment to the US Constitution it was the job of our US Senators to represent the states interests in Washington DC. After the 17th amendment however US Senators are elected the same as House Members, by popular vote, which has reduced and almost eliminated the states voice on the national level. I cannot recall a US Senator asking: “Is this Constitutional? Does this violate the 9th or 10th amendment?” before casting his or her vote on a particular issue. Per the 2nd, 9th, and 10th, amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the fact that the states created the federal government in the first place, it now is imperative that we assert our voice and our rights if we intend on keeping them.

    To quote historian Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr:

    What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

    The standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

    Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

    No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

    For Liberty,

    ME

    Those interested in Nullification head on over to Tom's website, lots of good resources:

    http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

    http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/

    http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/written-testimony-on-behalf-of-nullification/
     
  9. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    The Supremacy clause cannot legitimately be used to abrogate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was passed after the Supremacy clause, and therefore supercedes it.
     
  10. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    I notice that the bill says "gun control act of 1934" instead of "national firearms act of 1934". Given that they didn't use the actual name of the law, wouldn't that be a problem under the scrutiny of a court?
     
  11. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,582
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What absolute drivel. When has a federal court ever ruled anything of the sort?

    In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). In 1876 the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)).

    Of course you wrote "legitimately", but your opinion of the legitimacy of the the decisions of the federal courts doesn't really count for anything. As I noted above, the Founding Fathers assigned the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts and specifically authorized the federal courts to exercise that judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution.
     
  12. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    This whole idea of states "nullifying" federal law is, in itself, a nullity. All it amounts to is politicians trying to make cheap political points.

    The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that the federal constitution, laws, and treaties trump any state laws to the contrary. Even state-level law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the (federal) constitution, so it would be against their oath to try to enforce purported state laws in conflict with it.

    The last time nullification was seriously proposed was by John C. Calhoun in 1832. President Andrew Jackson made short work of that argument. Of course, the South Carolina nullifiers tried again, by seceding, in 1860, but we all know how that one turned out.

    Really, this is a blind alley for the gun-rights movement. It would be wise not to go there.
     
  13. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Bingo!!!

    It's cheap political theater.
     
  14. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    While I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case for this legislation... even symbolic "refusal to enforce" is a pretty strong statement (especially if it catches on) in a civil disobedience sort of way.
     
  15. BoltActionPrepper

    BoltActionPrepper Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Southern Appalachia
    Go Missouri! Go!
     
  16. 303tom

    303tom member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,059
    Location:
    Missouri
    We called em and said this is the way it is going to be or else your job is on the line..............
     
  17. Archangel14

    Archangel14 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    581
    I am a lawyer who deals with constitutional issues just about every day. No, this won't hold up. There's a thing called the "Supremacy Clause." Essentially, every federal law that is applicable to the states will supersede contradicting state law, assuming the federal law is constitutional. That's a very basic take on it, but I hail Misso, as they sent a VERY strong message to federal legislators.
     
  18. 444

    444 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,978
    Location:
    Ohio
    I haven't been keeping up with gun rights news for several years. I thought this had to be an April Fool's joke at first.

    I don't see this as political theater.
    If the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies won't enforce any federal firearms laws, I see this as significant. Depending on how far this is taken.

    If the BATF wants to conduct a raid, they are on their own. No state, or local back up. What happens if a guy is wanted for a firearms violation and is fleeing; does this mean that the locals will refuse to stop him or participate in his apprehension ?

    If someone is arrested for another crime and there are also illegal guns involved, appearently the local police won't even notify any federal agency ?

    What if a nationwide hunt is on for a guy that is wanted for firearms violations and the MO police know where he is, do they just ignore it ?

    When you say, "this won't hold up". What won't hold up ?
    Are the local police required to enforce federal laws ?
     
  19. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,056
    No one's said Missouri has nullified the intent of the laws, they are merely claiming the authority to do so from the Feds. It's still not kosher to saw your shotgun below 18.5", or build your own machine gun ;). This is much more a states' rights issue than a practical, on the ground issue that would directly affect us.

    IF they then go on to pass laws usurping or conflicting with federal laws, then we got something. At any rate it doesn't matter; it'll be decades before the Supremes (the court, not the group) rule on the matter.

    TCB
     
  20. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,061
    Location:
    S.E. Minnesota
    The "Missouri Compromise" ;)
     
  21. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    This has been discussed in Class III circles for years. Missouri is just doing what many in the NFA neighborhood have wanted to do all along: challenge the US Govt's claim to be able to restrict and govern INTRA-state commerce and regulation of firearms. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the feds to regulate (infringe) firearms totally WITHIN a state. Federal power applies to INTERSTATE regulations. What MO is claiming is that the 1934 law went beyond the powers of the feds, and was never reviewed by the Supreme Court, so the matter was never laid to rest. True, this is a test case for power by the states, but the specific challenge is one that a state just might win, and strengthen states' powers. It just HAPPENS to be on the subject of guns, state's rights to arm their citizen/militias, etc.
     
  22. vont01

    vont01 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19
    I also am a Missouri " show Me" citizen. If it works as proposed it will be fantastic and surely other states will follow.
     
  23. MJU1983

    MJU1983 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Jefferson City, MO
    Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,582
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And that will be a question for the federal courts. See post 21.
     
  25. MJU1983

    MJU1983 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Jefferson City, MO
    I disagree.

    Why would the states care what a federal court says in regards to a grievance between them and the federal government? It would be like us settling a dispute by asking my mom to referee. We hope she'd be fair but I think you know who she will side with. ;)

    Just because we have a history of bowing to the federal government doesn't mean we should continue doing so. The states preceded the Union. In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it. Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.

    Cue James Madison:

    The “parties to the constitutional compact” being, of course, the peoples of the states.

    I'll side with Jefferson on this one. :cool:

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page